Why do you call Lomborg a crank? I realise that the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty accused him of, unsurprisingly, scientific dishonesty, but their ruling was flatly rejected by the Danish Ministry of Science, saying “the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and…the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods."
His argument is certainly contrary to received wisdom, his methods may prove suspect, his data may turn out to be wrong, but no-one has demonstrated the latter two thus far. In fact, the book over which he was accused of scientific dishonesty was not even primary research - it was an analysis of the correspondence of environmentalists’ claims, and their own data. It really irritates me when someone gets written off as a “crank” simply for saying something which goes against the preponderance of scientific opinion. Address the arguments, not the man.
And while I’m on the topic of scientific dishonesty, those atmospheric concentration charts you linked to are profoundly annoying me, with their exaggerated scaling (I know they’re not yours - I’m annoyed at the IPCC). Our CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions are bad enough that they don’t need oversell - it just makes the case appear weak to do so.